alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021329EN.01001901.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with a brush)

(Case T-624/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a handgrip with a brush - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Welter’s Co. Ltd (Douliu, Taiwan) (represented by: T. Meinke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Case R 2428/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a handgrip with a brush as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Welter’s Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Welter’s Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AMOUNTS INAPPLICABLE OR NOT
DISCLOSED AS A SEPARATE LINE ON THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION OR RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS ARE REPORTED AS 0 HEREIN.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                  1,180
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           8,675
<ALLOWANCES>                              604
<INVENTORY>                             7,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       17,105
<PP&E>                                  9,523
<DEPRECIATION>                          5,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         28,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   6,327
<BONDS>                                 2,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  27,507
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                   10
<OTHER-SE>                             (8,659)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           28,432
<SALES>                                16,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       18,182
<CGS>                                   9,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          12,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           20
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (3,684)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (3,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           (3,684)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (.48)


</TABLE>
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana,

sitting by designation.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20894

BERNARD JOHNSON INC; ET AL, Plaintiffs,
BERNARD JOHNSON INC, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,

versus LAVINA S HASSON dba L S INVESTMENTS; ET AL Defendants,
THEODORE A HASSON Defendant - Counter Plaintiff and Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
JOHN H POLK; EDWARD MIKE DAVIS; MICHAEL D HARRIS; RAYMOND MARTIN; GREGG YOUNG; PETER LOTZ; DAVID BLASCHKE; FRANK MOON, Third Party Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-93-CV-1988)

December 8, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM an d STEWART, Circuit Judges, and WALTER * , District Judge.
PER CURIAM:** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
2 AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6. **
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>

This schedule contains  summary information extracted from the condensed
consolidated   balance   sheet   at  March 31,  2000 and March 31, 1999,
and the condensed  consolidated  statements  of income  for  the  twelve
months ended March 31, 2000 and March 31, 1999, and is  qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.



<S>                          <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              MAR-31-2000          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-2000          MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                             259,183              509,418
<SECURITIES>                             0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   52,015,107           39,923,471
<ALLOWANCES>                    10,968,714            8,548,550
<INVENTORY>                              0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         0                    0
<PP&E>                             719,354              532,379
<DEPRECIATION>                     387,760              315,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  54,135,378           42,257,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           43,008,094           33,716,313
<BONDS>                                  0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0                    0
<COMMON>                         3,711,602            3,702,587
<OTHER-SE>                       7,415,682            4,838,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    54,135,378           42,257,014
<SALES>                            517,445              495,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                14,074,816           10,418,538
<CGS>                               90,471              102,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    5,621,680            4,320,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    91,049               90,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 1,069,719              940,922
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               2,771,100            2,358,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  4,430,797            2,605,598
<INCOME-TAX>                     1,853,229            1,003,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              2,577,568            1,602,356
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                    0
<CHANGES>                                0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                     2,577,568            1,602,356
<EPS-BASIC>                         1.10                  .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                         1.01                  .65

        <FN>

<F1> RECEIVABLES ARE  PRESENTED  NET  OF UNEARNED FINANCE CHARGES,
NON-REFUNDABLE DEALER RESERVE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.

<F2> RECEIVABLES ARE PRESENTED  AS  TOTAL  RESERVES ,  COMPRISED OF
NON-REFUNDABLE DEALER RESERVE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.





</TABLE>
#### Petra Mortgage Capital Corp., LLC, et al., Appellants, v Amalgamated Bank, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 786]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J), entered November 28, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of all communications between defendant and its attorneys in a prior legal action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s commencement of an action as plaintiffs’ agent pursuant to an “Intercreditor and Servicing Agreement” did not create an attorney-client relationship between defendant’s attorney and plaintiffs *(see Bank of N.Y. v River Terrace Assoc., LLC,*23 AD3d 308, 311 [2005]; *see also In re Colocotronis Tanker Sec. Litig.,*449 F Supp 828 [SD NY 1978]). Nor were defendant and plaintiffs fiduciaries merely because they participated in the same loans *(see 330 Acquisition Co. v Regency Sav. Bank,*306 AD2d 154 [2003]).

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the applicability of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege *(see Horizon Asset Mgt., Inc. v Duffy,*82 AD3d 442 [2011]; *Galvin v Hoblock,*2003 WL 22208370, *4-5, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 16704, *12-15 [SD NY 2003]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of CuraGen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                   
|------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Frank M. Armstrong                            
|                    |  |     |  | Frank M. Armstrong                                
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President             
|                    |  |     |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)   
|                    |  |    
|Dated: May 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ David M. Wurzer                               
|                    |  |     |  | David M. Wurzer                                   
|                    |  |     |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer 
|                    |  |     |  | and Treasurer                                     
|                    |  |     |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the
|                    |  |     |  | registrant)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

          - [Docket No. CISA-2021-0011]

# AGENCY:

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) meeting.

# SUMMARY:

CISA announces the cancellation of the public meeting of the President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) scheduled for July 23, 2021.

# DATES:

                        This meeting was announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         on June 16, 2021 (86 FR 32053).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rachel Liang,                         *Rachel.Liang@cisa.dhs.gov;*                         202-936-8300.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

CISA gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, that the virtual meeting of the President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council set to be held on July 23, 2021 has been cancelled.

Rachel Liang,

Designated Federal Officer, President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2021-15206 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
#### Michael Eugene ASHBY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph LEHMAN; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 07-35532.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2009.

Michael Eugene Ashby, Monroe, WA, pro se.

Gregory J. Rosen, Esq., AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*49MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Michael Eugene Ashby appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, upon remand, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Although Ashby acknowledges that he has received the relief originally sought in his § 2254 petition, he contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as moot because it could have redressed two remaining injuries that resulted from his allegedly defective disciplinary proceedings.

We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *See Buckley v. Terhune,*441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006). Even assuming that the entirety of Ashby’s § 2254 petition was not moot, we conclude that dismissal was proper. Ashby lacks a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in earning early release time credits, and he therefore was not entitled to the protections of due process before he was deprived of his ability to earn the credits. *See Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); *In re Galvez,*79 Wash.App. 655, 657-58, 904 P.2d 790 (1995). Ashby’s claim regarding expungement is not cognizable. *Cf. Bostic v. Carlson,*884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.1989).

Ashby’s motion to supplement his reply brief is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39096-39097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15644]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the Roswell Air Center, Roswell, New Mexico

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the Roswell Air Center under the provisions of 
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for 
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Lacey D. Spriggs, Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, 
Louisiana/New Mexico Airports Development Office, ASW-640, Fort Worth, 
Texas 76177.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Scott Stark, Airport Director, at the 
following address: 1 Jerry Smith Circle, Roswell, NM 88203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Jean Gamarra, Program Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration,

[[Page 39097]]

Louisiana/New Mexico Airports Development Office, ASW-640, 10101 
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177, Telephone: (817) 222-5522, 
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a202f2b24642d2b272b38382b0a2c2b2b642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ee4ebefe0a0e9efe3effcfcefcee8efefa0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>, Fax: (817) 222-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Roswell Air Center under the 
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Roswell requests the release of 13.3974 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. The land was acquired by Deed without 
Warranty from the United States on January 24th, 1968. The property to 
be released will be sold to allow for future airport development.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the 
City of Roswell Legal Department, telephone number (575) 347-5703.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 16, 2021.
Ignacio Flores,
Director, Office of Airports Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-15644 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony GRAHAM, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7572.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.

Anthony Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Graham appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Graham,*No. 4:07-cr-00091-RAJ-JEB-l (E.D.Va. July 14, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             495
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             356
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,946
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,766
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         39,002
<ALLOWANCE>                                         66
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,509
<DEPOSITS>                                      31,866
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,300
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                391
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,987
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  51,509
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,977
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  530
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    36
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,543
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,487
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,028
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,515
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       11
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    314
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         314
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       195
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.99
<LOANS-NON>                                        174
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    58
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   66
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             68
        

</TABLE>